As Declassified noted last weekend, a recent FBI affidavit in a big Chicago terror case offered an unusually revealing glimpse of life behind “enemy lines” in Waziristan in northwest Pakistan.

ON Monday, the FBI provided an equally eye-opening look at the scene inside another jihadi stronghold, this one in the war-ravaged nation of Somalia (which U.S. officials increasingly fear is becoming a haven for Al Qaeda). In the process, the bureau shed new light on how one Somali American from Minneapolis ended up losing his life in Somalia—as a suicide bomber.

Earlier this year NEWSWEEK reported on the FBI’s concern about the strange case of young Somali Americans who were disappearing from their communities in Minneapolis and elsewhere in the United States only to reemerge fighting in Somalia on behalf of Al-Shabab, a militant terror group closely aligned with Al Qaeda. As part of its charges unveiled this week against eight defendants accused of providing material support to Al- Shabab, the Justice Department unsealed an FBI affidavit recounting the experiences of one such man—an unnamed confidential informant from the Minneapolis area who has pled guilty and is now assisting the FBI. The informant described how he was among a group of four men who flew from Minneapolis in late 2007 and wound up at an Al-Shabab training camp. The training camp was attended by “dozens” of other young Somalis from Africa, Europe, and the United States, the affidavit states. Somali, Arab, and “Western” instructors were there to train the students in “small arms, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and military style tactics.” The instructors also “indoctrinated” the students with “anti-Ethiopian, anti-American, anti-Israeli and anti-Western beliefs,” the affidavit states.
More

By Babak Dehghanpisheh

Holocaust denier, illegitimate president, and now--crook? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been called a lot of things since his disputed election last June and it doesn't look like the pressure is going to ease up. Last week, Transparency International ranked Iran a miserable ninth from the bottom in its annual Corruption Perceptions Index. What's particularly damning about this ranking is that corruption has nearly doubled under Ahmadinejad's watch: Iran had a score of 2.9 out of 10 in 2005, the first year of his presidency, and now sits uncomfortably at 1.8, a 38 percent drop.

This hasn't gone unnoticed inside the country. A special parliamentary commission, which has been investigating the Ahmadinejad government's privatization of state-run companies during the past three and a half years, presented their findings last week. The commission blasted the government's privatization efforts, claiming that the management of privatized companies was never handed over in many cases. "Unfortunately, there are corrupt individuals from the top to the bottom of this government," Ahmad Tavakoli, the head of the Parliament research center, said in Parliament last week.

One shady deal was singled out by the commission: the recent sale of the Telecommunication Company of Iran, a whopping $7.8 billion share purchase--the biggest in the history of the Iranian stock exchange--to a company run by the Revolutionary Guards. The commission concluded that the consortium contesting the bid was a "fake rival" and the telecom company was essentially handed over to the Guards.

More

According to a study released today by Pediatrics , University of Washington's Dimitri A. Christakis has found that children may be watching significantly more television than previously reported─because those earlier assessments didn't include television...

When it comes to the policies and politics of Barack Obama, it's no secret that liberals and conservatives don't see eye to eye. But according to behavioral sciencist Eugene Caruso of the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, these differences in perspective may literally be a difference in perception. In a new study, Caruso and colleagues Emily Balcetis of New York University and Nicole Mead of Tillberg University asked a group of undergraduates which of a series of photographs of Obama--some of them secretly lightened and darkened--best represented who he is as a person. The results were striking: while self-described liberals tended to pick the digitally lightened photos of the president, self-described conservative students more frequently picked the darkened images. The more one agrees with a politician, in other words, the lighter his skin tone seems; the less you agree, the darker it becomes. To discuss how political affinities influence perception--and how politicians and the press could take advantage of these findings--NEWSWEEK's Andrew Romano spoke to Caruso. Excerpts:

How did the study actually work?
Essentially we were interested in whether political party influences how people literally see the world, and how they may see different depictions of candidates as representative of who they really are. So to test this we gathered up a bunch of photos of Barack Obama and digitally altered them to create a version where his skin tone appeared a bit lighter and a version where his skin tone was a bit darker than it appeared in the original photograph. And then we just showed people several different photos and asked them to rate each one on how much they represented who he really is. What we found was that participants who told us that they had a liberal political orientation rated the lightened photographs as more representative of Obama than the darkened photographs, whereas participants who told us they had a more conservative ideology rated the darkened photographs as more representative of Obama than the lightened ones.

So how much of a difference between self-identified liberals and self-identified conservatives did you find in the results?
It’s a little bit hard to quantify the difference because they were just rating on a 7-point scale of representativeness. So to make it a bit more concrete we looked, for each participant, at which photo they rated as the most representative. They gave us three different ratings—say 1, 4 and 6—and we picked the photo that they gave the highest number to. From there we saw that liberals were about five times as likely to rate a lightened version of Obama as the most representative compared to a darkened version, whereas conservatives were about twice as likely to rate a darkened version as most representative compared to the lightened version.

I’m no expert here, but you’re confident that it’s the skin tone that changes “representativeness” in the eyes of the voter, as opposed to something else about the photographs—like pose, or background, or facial expression?
That’s a great question. What we did was essentially take three different photos with three different poses, and created for each photo a lightened and a darkened version. And then we randomly selected the combination of pose and skin tone that we showed each participant.

So your findings about “representativeness” were consistent across poses—the conservative will be twice as likely to say a “darkened” Obama was representative, regardless of which image of Obama was being darkened?
Right. We were experimentally able to isolate the effect of skin tone because some people saw a lightened version of pose #1 and others saw a darkened version of pose #1—and independent of the pose the lightened versions seemed most representative to liberals and the darkened most representative to conservatives.

Were you surprised by the results?
A little bit. Some of my research deals with how people who have different views on a subject are able to try to understand the views of someone on the other side, and the general finding is that people aren’t particularly good at really coming to understand the perspective of someone with whom they disagree. Beyond that, though, I got interested in this notion of whether our beliefs can actually affect the way we see the world—of whether they can actually affect our perception of objects or people in our environment. And it turns out they can.

CLICK THROUGH FOR THE REST OF THE INTERVIEW...

More

Since he dropped out of the California governor’s race last month, where has San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom been? That’s exactly what local TV news reporter Hank Plante asked the mayor last week during an interview—one of the few he has given over the past month. Newsom answered with the amount of San Francisco’s current deficit—$522 million—as reason for having ducked out of public view. But Plante wasn’t buying it. He challenged Newsom on a staff shake-up, including several resignations from senior staff. Then there were questions about an off-the-radar weekend getaway Newsom took to Hawaii without telling key members of his staff. And then about why he had missed so many important public appearances. By the time Plante got around to asking about the deficit, a clearly agitated Newsom was done being patient. Leaving the room, he shook his head and grinned at the camera, declaring “off the record” how "amazingly disappointed" he was in the questioning.

 

More

More

By Anita Kirpalani The EU seems never to miss a chance to be boring. Last week, after much agonizing, it decided to fill two top posts created by the new Lisbon Treaty--the European Council president and the high representative for foreign policy--with...

Today on Public Radio International's morning show, The Takeaway, host John Hockenberry, Detroit Free Press columnist Rochelle Riley, and I discussed how to avoid family fights during Thanksgiving. As I mentioned on the show, some amount of discord may be inevitable this year: from health care to climate change to gay rights, we're living in a particularly political time.

Like in War Games, the only way to win a political argument amongst relatives is not to play. But while you can head into Thanksgiving dinner determined to avoid any conversations about sensitive topics, you can't count on other members of your family to do the same. So if you want to keep the peace, you have a choice: you can either halfheartedly agree with whatever offensive (to you) nonsense (to you) that Aunt Sally is spewing, or you can try to artfully change the subject.

Of course, you could challenge Aunt Sally directly on her views about climate change, health-care reform, or whether or not H1N1 is a global conspiracy perpetrated by the pharmaceutical companies. Some families love nothing more than battling it out over turkey and mashed potatoes. For those who don't, we've provided a list of five all-important holiday dodges to get you from a dangerous topic to a less offensive one, still guaranteed to elicit a lot of opinions:

1) Health Care: Health care is not only incredibly complex and divisive, it can lead to discussions of an even more volatile topic, abortion. Instead, try to steer any medical conversations toward Charla Nash, the women who was brutally injured in a chimp attack. Nash's tragic story incorporates elements of health and medicine—she's currently living at the Cleveland Clinic full time, hoping for a face transplant; in the mean time she's relearning how to live without hands or a face. There's enough in her story to keep your family talking for hours.

2) Gay Rights: When someone starts to discuss the fight for gay marriage, talk about Adam Lambert: his humble beginnings on American Idol; his guy-on-guy kiss at the American Music Awards. By keeping the topic in the realm of pop culture, you may actually be able to have a low-stakes debate about gay rights. As Lambert himself pointed out, women have been performing similar stunts at award shows for years. Is this different? Discuss. And when things get too heated, switch to comparing the merits of Ellen vs. Paula.

3)  Sarah Palin: No matter how people feel about Palin, credulity that Levi Johnston is somehow still something of a celebrity is a point on which most Americans can unite. Bring up his Playgirl spread and watch the conversation go from politics to pornography.

 

 

4)  Barack Obama: President Obama is a unique position to anger both liberals and conservatives, both of whom feel he's on the wrong path. Michelle Obama, with a 63 percent approval rating, is a much safer subject. And her initiatives as first lady are all family friendly: starting a garden, supporting military families, wearing Banana Republic and J. Crew on a public stage.

5) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: No matter how you feel about the war, you have to respect the service of the men and women serving overseas. Focus on that—then show your family the amazing online videos of soldiers reuniting with their dogs after serving a tour of duty: 

 6) Climate Change: Al Gore's recent appearance on 30 Rock will only lead to debates about whether Gore is an eco-savior or a false prophet and whether 30 Rock is still funny. Instead, bring up the meteorological styling of the tornado-chasing, Balloon-Boy-launching Henne family. Not only will everyone have something to say, chances are their family will make you appreciate how normal yours really is.

This is not how we recommend behaving every other day of the year. It's important to stand up for your beliefs and to be able to defend those beliefs articulately. But Thanksgiving is a different story: the level of discourse never gets beyond arguing over the very basic facts (Obama: Secret Muslim or not?), and very rarely will you change someone's mind over dinner.

Of course, if you are gay, or Sarah Palin, or a solider, it may be impossible not to get passionate—and personal—before the turkey is even out of the oven. But save for those situations, it's probably not worth taking on your sweet, frail, and totally sexist 86-year-old grandfather in a battle of oratory skill.

In other words: feel free to stand up for what you really believe in, but don't try to be a hero. Accept your family for the lovable, well-intentioned, ill-informed bunch that they are, pour another glass of wine, and try to make it through the night unscathed. 

When all else fails? Mention Twilight and let your teenage cousin do the rest.  

The newly discovered links between a Chicago-area terror suspect and last year’s deadly Mumbai attacks have triggered front-page headlines in India, including a rash of speculation about an alleged Bollywood connection. According to an FBI affidavit, David Coleman Headley, the son of a former Pakistani diplomat accused of plotting terror attacks in Denmark, was in regular communication since early 2008 with an operative of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistani terror group suspected of orchestrating the Mumbai massacre.

In one e-mail exchange intercepted by U.S. intelligence last July, Headley and the operative talked about going “to see rahul [sic].” The FBI affidavit states that, from a review of Headley’s e-mails, “it is clear that ‘Rahul’ refers to a prominent Indian actor with the first name of 'Rahul.' ”

The Indian press has been filled with speculation—and denials—about the identity of “Rahul” and various Bollywood actresses who might have been associated with him and Headley (see here and here). The Indian press has reported—and Indian officials confirmed to NEWSWEEK’s Sudip Mazumdar—that the Rahul in question is not actually an actor but Rahul Bhatt, the son of a famous Bollywood filmmaker, Mahesh Bhatt, who was a fitness trainer at a posh Mumbai gym that Headley frequented during multiple trips to the city in which he was suspected of conducting surveillance for last year’s Mumbai attacks. There is no indication the trainer was a participant in the terror plot, and the Indian press reports he is cooperating in the probe. 

But a close reading of the FBI affidavit, and other court documents filed in the case, suggests the Headley case has provided more fruitful nuggets for investigators on a host of other fronts.

More

It's official: Harry Reid has corralled enough votes to bring his health-care-reform bill to the floor. Blanche Lincoln became the 60th Democrat committed to voting to allow debate to open on the bill, following her moderate colleague Mary Landrieu, who also announced today that she'd vote aye. But Reid still has his work cut out for him. This vote signals little about the ultimate viability of the bill. For all the furrowed brows and gnashing of teeth to get to today's 60 yes votes, this vote simply says that the Senate is prepared to have a debate on the bill. From here, the bill will be discussed and possibly amended. Then Reid must find another 60 votes to end the debate, and then he'll need at least 51 senators who want to vote the final product up. Clearly his work is far from over. This reluctance to even allow the bill to be debated—keeping in mind there will be two other opportunities to vote against it—illustrates the depth of moderate concerns. More

The FBI is expanding its investigation in a Chicago terrorism case to determine whether a key suspect may have helped scout targets for last year’s massive coordinated attack in Mumbai, India that killed 166 people, according to U.S. law enforcement officials.

The Justice Department announced late last month that it had charged two Chicago-area men—David Coleman Headley, the son of a former Pakistani diplomat, and a childhood friend, Tahawwur Hussain Rana-- for plotting to attack a Danish newspaper for publishing cartoons deemed offensive to the Prophet Mohammed.

But since then, the case has taken some dramatic turns that have attracted the interest of Indian Government investigators and transformed it into one of the most significant international terrorism cases that the FBI has brought since 9/11, the officials say.

After his arrest at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport on Oct. 3, Headley waived his rights to a lawyer and admitted to FBI agents that he had worked directly with Ilyas Kashmiri—a notorious Al Qaeda linked terrorist – to plan the assassination of an editor of the Danish newspaper (who he mistakenly believed was Jewish) and the cartoonist who drew the cartoon of Mohammed, according to a detailed 47 page FBI affidavit filed in federal court on Nov. 6.

More

I’ve never bought macrobiotic cupcakes or hypoallergenic socks. Nor have I hired a tutor for pencil-holding deficiency, or put covers on the stove knobs, or used a leash on a toddler to be safe in a busy airport. At the grocery store, my kids are often in other aisles, but they’ve never felt lost. When they were babies, we weren’t scared to leave them with babysitters. Their preschool didn’t teach Mandarin, nor even worry about teaching them to read. Nor have I ever questioned a teacher about one of my children’s grades.

In fact, nobody I know has done these things. The only parents I know who are superprotective are parents who have to be—and it’s totally justified—because their child has Down’s or Asperger’s.

But like all of you, I still suspect these horror stories—while not representative of reality—shine a light on the unmistakable reality that we are not giving our kids anything like the freedom or independence we enjoyed as children when we were growing up. If we turned out fine, then why do we think our kids have to be raised so differently? This is the grand theme of Nancy Gibbs’s story on the cover of Time, “Can These Parents Be Saved?”

The problem with using these horror stories to make a point is that they’re not helpful in finding the right line between parenting and overparenting. Carl Honore’s book Under Pressure is also filled with bad-parent stories ripped from the newspapers. Obviously it’s wrong to sue a college because it did not admit your child. Obviously it’s wrong for a tennis dad to spike his son’s opponents’ water bottles with Temesta, a drowsiness drug. Obviously it’s wrong for Japanese 2-year-olds to enroll in cram schools.

As Gibbs admits deep into her article, having parents involved in children’s lives is exceptionally good for children. They get better grades, drink less, use fewer drugs, etc. Backing away completely is not the answer.

So the real question is, for regular parents—normal, involved parents who are not crazy, headline-worthy overprotective freaks—in what dimensions do we need to back off?

We think our book NurtureShock, and our column here, have already noted many areas where good parents are going too far. Here’s a summary of those points, in some cases with additional commentary:

• Praise them less, and help them develop accurate awareness of how well they’re doing—so don’t try to spin them into believing they’re better than they are.
  
  
• Protect their sleep hours fiercely.
  
  
• When young children hurt each other’s feelings, give them a chance to come back together on their own. You might not see apologies or overt repair, but scientists are learning that repair can be implicitly implied when kids end up side by side again.
  
  
• Choose schools that don’t assign too much homework (more than an hour in middle school is too much), and the schools will finally get the message.
  
  
• Protect play time, and as children mature, help make sure they still have outlets for fantasy.
  
  
• By the time a child is 11, don’t encourage or expect her to tell you everything. Some things need to be none of your business. Set a few rules and enforce them, but in other domains encourage independence and autonomy.
  
  
• Teens need opportunities to take good risks. They need more exposure to other adults, and even kids of other ages—and less exposure to teens exactly their age. They need part of their life to feel real, not just a dress rehearsal for college. They will mature more quickly if these elements are in their life.
  
  
• Colleges have gotten better. It’s harder today to get into the top 30 name-brand colleges, because so many kids apply, but the next 70 colleges are now just as good as the top 30 were when you went to college, and the next 100 are darn good too. Care about your child’s education, not the notoriety of the name printed on his college sweatshirt.
  

They are calling it the Manhattan Declaration, a 4,700-word manifesto reaching into scripture and signed by 148 Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical leaders. It was released this afternoon at a press conference in Washington, D.C., and is designed to draw a line in the sand across three issues they argue are non-negotiable despite the law: the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage as being between a man and woman, and religious freedom.

Signers of the Declaration pledge to "...not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act,” nor will signers “bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships” or “treat them as marriages.” The list of backers reads like a who’s who of the pro-life movement, and the document essentially argues that supporters of the movement deserve conscience rights.

More

If it's not Mike Bloomberg, it's his predecessor. The New York Daily News reports that Rudy Giuliani is going to run for the Senate in 2010 and that he may use that as a stepping stone to a presidential run in 2012. Over at The Atlantic Chris Good claims that "Giuliani will make a formidable Senate candidate, should he run—in fact, if he enters the race, he will likely become the frontrunner," noting that he polls ahead of incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand.

Repeat after me, punditariat: the mayoralty of New York is a stepping stone to nothing.

More

Earlier this week the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force shocked legions of women when it recommended waiting until 50 for a first mammogram, despite previous recommendations that women begin mammograms at 40. Then today, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released new guidelines for Pap smears. Previously, all sexually active women were encouraged to get the test—which examines cells in the cervix to determine whether there are any abnormalities that could lead to cancer—every year. Now, the recommendations state that women begin the Pap test at 21, retest every other year, and then, once women hit their 30s, schedule a test every three years.

Quite often, new technology hits the market before long-term studies have been completed, says Ted Epperly, a family physician and past president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Only after years of using the equipment can experts then gather statistics about their efficacy. And, Epperly suggests, there may be other tests once considered annual necessities that are now being reevaluated in light of new evidence. We asked Epperly to evaluate other preventative tests—once considered lifesavers—and relay what the evidence currently suggests. As always, be sure to check with your doctor about your individual risks and treatment plan More

The Obama administration didn't hesitate recently to pick a fight with Fox News, but its Department of Homeland Security now appears to have backpedaled on a report expressing concern about what its analysts earlier this year described as "right-wing extremists." Back in April, Homeland Security's intelligence analysis division produced a nine-page "assessment" describing how the nation's economic problems and the ascent of the first African-American president "could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists" and might even lead to violence between such groups and the government. Although the paper was stamped "for official use only" and bits of it were labeled "law enforcement sensitive." the document quickly made its way onto the Internet. Its contents provoked howls of rage from conservative activists (some of which was reflected in reports from ... Fox News). The report's critics expressed particular outrage at a paragraph stating that returning veterans "possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists." The report stated directly that Homeland Security's intelligence shop was "concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities." (Despite these concerns, the report also acknowledged up front that the Feds had "no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.")

After the report became public, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano backed away from it, telling members of Congress that it had been disseminated to state and local officials without proper authorization. She said the department's procedures for vetting such documents had not been followed. But Napolitano also indicated that the report would be "replaced or redone in a much more useful and much more precise fashion." After gunmen with extreme right-wing pedigrees separately killed a Kansas abortion doctor and a security guard at Washington's Holocaust Museum, some liberal activists raised questions as to when Homeland Security was going to produce an updated version of the April report. 

That is unlikely to happen. Instead, said a source familiar with Homeland Security Department thinking, the contents of the April report have already been sliced and diced and put into other reports about extremism that the department has no plans to make public.

More

Exhibit A:

 

Consider, men and women of the jury

The evidence of displaced fury.

Rage flung like a prisoner’s feces

Against the walls.  The human species

Unique in all biology

Kills for ideology.

More

Credit: Michael Loccisano - Getty Images... More

By Jeremy Herb

Between online gambling and the countless ESPN reruns of the World Series of Poker, poker has become a mainstream "sport." Gambling experts say 10 to 15 million Americans wager $100 billion on the internet each year, and more than 6,000 paid $10,000 to enter this year's World Series main event. The online gambling industry - made up of offshore companies - earns somewhere between $6 and $10 billion in the U.S. annually. But it's a poker game of politics, not cards, that will decide the fate of online gaming in the U.S.

The battle rests on a bill that was passed in the final hours of the 2006 Republican-controlled Congress, when Sen. Bill Frist tacked it onto a port security bill. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) forbids banks from accepting illegal Internet gambling transactions. In essence, it prevents would be players from using their debit or credit cards-a standard for online payments-for Internet gambling. Those who support Internet gambling, led by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, are making a final plea to the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve to push back the law for one year, giving them time to repeal it. In response, Sen. John Kyl and Rep. Spencer Bachus wrote a letter to Geithner and Bernanke urging them to enforce the Dec. 1 deadline. The Treasury and Fed have yet to make a decision, according to a Federal Reserve official.

More

If President Obama was looking for another way to differentiate himself from President Bush, he just found it. When it comes to sports, you might recall Bush as an avid mountain biker. He also showed off some lightening-quick reflexes that one time that would give him an edge in dodgeball, and certainly fencing. Obama’s forté so far has been shooting hoops. Now add to the list, football. Check out this PSA that will run during several football games on Thanksgiving Day that encourages kids to get more exercise. Between spliced footage of kids running and doing jumping jacks, Obama makes a cameo on the White House lawn, tossing around the old pigskin. An ordinary game of catch, right? Not quite. The whole spot comes off as rather moving, almost epic, but not because of Obama or his receiving skills. Producers slowed down the footage so much that a short-range pass from New Orleans’s Saints quarterback Drew Brees to Obama ends up looking like a Sports Center highlight. Then, add in some dramatic background music and the receiver-in-chief almost looks qualified for a Heisman. Of course that would be premature. First we would need to see his end-zone dance.

More

By Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff

The Fort Hood shooting may soon become more politically explosive. Two U.S. intelligence officials Thursday night confirmed to Declassified key details of a just-breaking ABC News report--that in emails sent to a radical Yemeni cleric, accused shooter Nidal Hasan asked when jihad is appropriate, and said “I can’t wait to join you” in the afterlife.

One U.S. official, who did not want to be named discussing sensitive information, said the emails could be “a problem,” but cautioned that they still needed to be viewed in context.

In background briefings for reporters and members of Congress, U.S. officials have insisted that Hasan’s communications with radical imam Anwar al Awlaki were consistent with a paper he was researching as an Army psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Medical Center. After a Joint Terrorism Task Force reviewed the emails last spring and concluded that Hasan was “not involved in terrorist activities or terrorist planning,” FBI and U.S. Army officials chose not to open an investigation. But members of Congress now are demanding answers about what the FBI and Army knew—and the ABC report is likely to fuel those demands. (The ABC story also reports that, while earning a salary of $92,000 a year including his housing and food allowances, Hasan contributed $20,000 to $30,000 a year to Islamic charities.)

To respond to Congress--and to prepare for Hasan’s trial--U.S. intelligence officials have been wrestling with how much of the email chain (intercepted by U.S. intelligence) can be declassified without compromising sources and methods. Given the leaks, that question may soon be academic.

More

Wonder why President Obama’s trip this week to China didn’t go more smoothly? Meetings between Obama and top Chinese leaders were reportedly stiff; the Chinese also limited domestic press coverage of Obama’s appearances. The explanation is disarmingly obvious: huge disagreements separate the two countries that can’t easily be papered over.

Anyone doubting that ought to take a quick read of the latest annual report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a group established by Congress in 2000 to examine the connections between the countries’ economic relations and broader issues of national security. The Commission has typically been more suspicious of Chinese policies and motives than many American analysts. This year’s report is no exception.

More

Wonder why President Obama’s trip this week to China didn’t go more smoothly? Meetings between Obama and top Chinese leaders were reportedly stiff; the Chinese also limited domestic press coverage of Obama’s appearances. The explanation is disarmingly obvious: huge disagreements separate the two countries that can’t easily be papered over.

Anyone doubting that ought to take a quick read of the latest annual report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a group established by Congress in 2000 to examine the connections between the countries’ economic relations and broader issues of national security. The Commission has typically been more suspicious of Chinese policies and motives than many American analysts. This year’s report is no exception.

More

By this time next month, Pakistan is likely to have a monster of a reconstruction project on its hands. That’s not necessarily because latest anti-Taliban offensive has laid such waste to its tribal areas; it hasn’t. As those who went on the press junket through South Waziristan earlier this week pointed out, the army hasn’t had to wage much of a fight, and images of rubble are less common than evidence of sudden flight. The militants—Mehsuds, Uzbeks, and maybe some Arabs—have scattered, potentially to Afghanistan, mainstream Pakistan, or North Waziristan, where the Afghan Taliban is likely holed up. That raises a worrisome question about the next phase, once displaced civilians start heading back to their homes: what’s to keep the militants from simply coming back with them?

More